Advocacy-Matters-Winter-2026

ADVOCACY MATTERS
The Advocates’ Society
WINTER 2026

CONTENTS
THE ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY
END OF TERM DINNER
SAVE THE DATE: June 18, 2026
Cocktails: 5:30 pm (ET) | Dinner: 7:00 pm (ET)
Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto
After Party: Ripley’s Aquarium
04
09
12
14
16
20
25
30
Interview: Laésha J. Smith,
Poulus Ensom Smith LLP
Sahil Shoor, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
Guarding the Media’s Effective
Access to Open Courts
David Thompson, Carroll Heyd Chown LLP
Happy Lawyer Project:
Win or lose, there’s always something to learn
Lisa Marie Buccella, Aviva Trial Lawyers
Winning Advocacy Using Visual Aids
Laura Bevan, Lawson Lundell LLP
Trauma-informed lawyering:
what is it and why should lawyers care?
Anna Matas, St. Lawrence Barristers PC and Julie Mouris, Conway Litigation
Using AI Tools in Practice: Experts Edition
Jordan Katz, Ivanov Katz LLP
Building a Practice as a Mid-Career Arbitrator
Compiled by: Ian C. Matthews, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Judicial Origins
Jordan Katz, Ivanov Katz LLP
Black-Tie | A Member-Only Event
Editor: Kristen Duerhammer, KPMG Law LLP
Deputy Editor: Julie Mouris, Conway Litigation
The opinions expressed by individual authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Advocates’ Society.
Advocacy Matters Editorial Team: Laura Bevan, Lisa Marie Buccella, Moya Graham, Jordan Katz, John Mather, Ian Matthews,
Scott McGrath, Sahil Shoor, David Thompson
3

Q. Your practice has taken you through multiple jurisdictions, including Canada, the United
States, and Europe. From that vantage point, what differences have you observed in how legal
institutions approach equity and inclusion, and which approaches have most influenced how
you practise today?
INTERVIEW
Interview: Laésha J. Smith,
Poulus Ensom Smith LLP
Compiled by Sahil Shoor,
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
Laésha Smith is a partner at Poulus Ensom Smith LLP. For nearly two decades, Laésha has maintained
a litigation practice that focuses on securities, administrative law and complex commercial
litigation. Prior to relocating to BC in 2015, Laésha practiced for 10 years at top international law
firms in New York and London.
A. Practising in Canada, the US and the UK has taught me that legal institutions can use similar language
around equity and inclusion, yet feel very different on the ground. When I was flown to New
York from McGill law school for a week of interviews with major New York firms in 2003, the profession
felt far less diverse, both in who was physically present and in the range of personalities that were
permitted to belong. Many of the offices I visited were lined with portraits of white male partners. At
one particularly prestigious firm, all of the lawyers who interviewed me were white male partners, and
while some white female associates joined the restaurant lunch, they seemed like carbon copies of
each other in that they were all dressed similarly and acted similarly. The only person of colour I saw at
that particular firm was the woman cleaning the bathroom when I stepped away between interviews.
It was immediately clear to me that I would never truly fit in there.
The firm I ultimately chose felt very different. Being more international, I heard multiple languages
in the hallways. The lawyers were quirky and distinct rather than interchangeable. There were even
other lawyers who went to McGill or U of T. Those early contrasts taught me to pay attention not only
to who is in the room, but also to whether people are allowed to show up as themselves. Two decades
later, there has undeniably been progress. Students and younger lawyers are far more comfortable in
their own skin than my peers and I felt we could be in the early 2000s; they speak more openly about
race, gender and mental health, and they are less willing to shrink themselves to fit a single model of
professionalism. That shift gives me real hope, because it suggests the next generation will not only
enter the profession, but insist on reshaping it in healthier ways. Today, the approaches that resonate
most with me are the ones that embed equity into everyday decisions (who gets staffed on the firm’s
top files, who is brought to client pitches, whose judgment is trusted in the strategy room) as opposed
to relying on website proclamations alone.
Q. How has navigating those environments shaped your thinking about belonging and professional
credibility within the legal profession?
A. Navigating different jurisdictions as a Black woman has made belonging feel like a moving target,
especially when race, gender and professional credibility intersect. In 2007, while I was practising at a
New York law firm, a white associate editor from Glamour Magazine was invited to speak at the firm’s
Women’s Working Group (WWG) luncheon on the “do’s and don’ts of corporate dress”. Her slide deck
included a photo of a white woman with flowing hair as a “Glamour do” while a Black woman wearing
an afro was described as a “Glamour don’t,” and she went on to make disparaging comments about
dreadlocks and braids as “dreadful.” At the time, I was wearing my own hair natural. Sitting there in
a room full of professional women and watching my natural state treated as an example of what not
4 5

to do made me acutely aware that my appearance could be read as unprofessional even by people I
worked alongside.​The WWG Committee (all white women) had seen the Glamour slides beforehand
and no one thought they were inappropriate. I knew these women, they were all lovely people – great
colleagues – it just hadn’t dawned on them that the slides could be offensive. It confirmed my own
insecurities about whether I, in my natural state, was viewed as belonging in that environment.
And while Glamour Magazine (and my firm) promptly and responsibly issued apologies, in response
to this experience, 1 I’m ashamed to say I straightened my natural hair more often and tried
harder to “neutralize” myself, all while quietly carrying the weight of questions raised long before
about my identity. I still recall when I first read Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye in undergrad I wept
like a baby because I recognized my own flawed internalization of standards about beauty, worthiness
and who is allowed to take up space. Like many Black women, I have a complex relationship
with my hair and body; it is both deeply personal and socially charged. Media representation has
also played an unexpectedly vivid role in how clients see me. Once Suits became popular, clients
began telling me I reminded them of Jessica Pearson—often based on nothing more than the
fact that I am a Black woman litigator in a leadership role. On one level, that comparison speaks
to how hungry people were to see a powerful Black female lawyer on screen; on another, it is a
reminder that when representation is scarce, a single character can become the reference point
for an entire group.
There were smaller, but very sharp, moments that shaped me too. At my first trial, a white male
court reporter interrupted me mid-examination to say, “Slow down, Ms. Smith, you have an accent,”
(I am originally from Guyana); even though I was speaking clearly and at a pace that would
not have been questioned in another advocate. I am also a Black woman with a baby face; while it
is an ego boost to still be carded when buying a bottle of wine, it can feel very different standing
in court opposite an older white male counsel, aware of the quiet assumptions that may be made
about who appears more experienced, authoritative or reliable. Some of that is my own internal
baggage that I continue to work on discarding, but it also reflects broader norms about what authority
is supposed to look and sound like in our courtrooms.
Over time, and particularly now in my mid-40s with my own law firm, I feel more comfortable
embracing my ethnicity, my natural hair and my own voice as part of my professional identity
rather than something to be managed away. That journey has reshaped my sense of credibility:
it is not only about how persuasively I advocate, but also about refusing the idea that excellence
requires erasing or softening parts of who I am.
Q. You have been involved in DEI initiatives both within professional associations and in firm
settings. In your view, what distinguishes DEI efforts that lead to lasting institutional change
from those that remain largely symbolic?
A. Experiencing firsthand how genuinely well-meaning companies are sometimes blind to the offensive
implications of their words and actions has made me cautious about purely symbolic DEI gestures.
Efforts that stay at the level of slogans, celebratory months or one-off trainings can coexist
quite comfortably with environments where no one questions why a Black woman’s natural hair or
speech pattern is treated as unprofessional or “other,” or why a court reporter feels entitled to frame
a young black lawyer’s voice as an “accent” that needs correction. Those initiatives tend not to change
who feels safe speaking up, who is invited into informal networks, or who is trusted with client-facing
responsibility.​
My concerns are not of a bygone era. I was recently made aware of a young brown woman being
told she’s a great lawyer but not a great “fit” for her firm’s partnership. She repeatedly asked
for reasons why: Work quality? Hours? Dedication? Business development? None of the above,
she was told. They kept repeating the word “fit” to her. When I go to that firm’s website to look at
their partners, they are all white men and one white woman. That young woman left that firm and
started her own. Bravo!
DEI work that generates lasting change looks different. It is built into core processes (recruitment,
evaluations, compensation, courtroom staffing and leadership selection) so that unconscious
biases are not allowed to operate unchecked. It involves regular, sometimes uncomfortable
reflection on how race and gender show up in day-to-day practice: who is interrupted in
court, whose judgments are second-guessed, whose “polish” is questioned and whose mistakes
are quietly forgiven. It also recognizes that for Black women, seemingly small comments about
hair, voice, “accent” or perceived youth are not trivial; they are moments where belonging, professionalism
and respect are tested. When institutions take those realities seriously, it signals that
inclusion is structural, not merely symbolic.
Q. Black History Month invites reflection not only on progress but also on continuity. From
your perspective, what aspects of legal training or career progression most benefit from re-examination
if the profession is serious about widening opportunity?
A. Black History Month invites not only celebration but also a sober look at what the profession still
treats as “neutral.” Legal training presents itself as detached from questions of race and identity, yet
many Black women learn early that their bodies, voices and hair are read through a set of assumptions
before they say a word about the law. A law school curriculum that never addresses how judges, juries
and court staff may hear a “non-standard” voice or see a youthful-looking racialized woman leaves
students unprepared for moments like being told, in open court, that they have an “accent” that needs
managing, or sitting through a corporate-dress seminar that frames natural Black hair as a professional
liability. If the profession is serious about widening opportunity, it needs to bring conversations about
bias, internalized standards and professional identity into core advocacy and ethics training, not treat
them as optional side topics.​
Career progression also warrants scrutiny. Access to stretch assignments, courtroom opportunities
and mentorship remains heavily influenced by informal comfort and affinity, which can disadvantage
those who do not fit the unspoken template of who “looks” or “sounds” like a natural advocate. Re-examining
progression means asking how feedback is given, how “fit” is assessed and whether leadership
genuinely values different ways of showing up (including natural hair, different speech patterns,
youthful appearances and a range of cultural reference points). Here again, younger generations give
me optimism: they are more inclined to name inequities directly and to expect transparency around
criteria for advancement, which creates momentum for institutions to modernize. Making space for
more authentic expressions of identity is not cosmetic; it is part of dismantling the barriers that have
kept talented people from thriving in courtrooms and law firms.
6 7

Q. Your career combines high-stakes litigation with sustained engagement in mentorship and
access-to-justice work. How do you think about professional success in a way that accommodates
both excellence in practice and responsibility to the broader legal community?
A. For much of my career, success meant proving (sometimes to myself, sometimes to others) that I
could excel within institutions not designed with someone like me in mind. High-stakes litigation demands
rigour, judgment and resilience, and those demands have shaped me in important ways.
Today, success includes the freedom to embrace my ethnicity, my natural hair and my own voice
without apology, and to model for younger lawyers that they do not need to contort themselves
to belong. It includes my work in mentorship and access-to-justice spaces, where I can help create
conditions I did not always experience. Creating spaces where Black women and other marginalized
lawyers are seen, listened to and taken seriously on their own terms. The fact that some
clients now instinctively link me to a character like Jessica Pearson is, in its own way, a marker of
change from the world I entered in 2003 as there are simply more images of Black women lawyers
in positions of authority. For me, professional success includes contributing to that expanded
imagination by the very fact of being a visible Black woman partner at a law firm or in court whose
presence feels ordinary rather than exceptional.
Notes
1. https://www.glamour.com/story/leive-letter
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
File
Save &
Close
AutoSave
LEAP
Rename
& Close
Practice management
software for civil litigation
15+ AI Litigation Prompts
Legal Accounting & Billing
Microsoft 365 Integration
Support & Training
Secure Document Management
Cloud Solution & Mobility
Automated Court Forms & Precedents
Al features are included at no additional cost.
Book a Demo leaplegalsoftware.ca
sales@leaplegalsoftware.ca | 20 Bay Street, Toronto ON
Off
AutoSave AutoSave AutoSave Off Off
AI Prompt Off
for Affidavit for Motion to AI Compel Prompt AI Prompt Answers AI for Prompt Affidavit for Affidavit to for Undertakings_2 for Affidavit Motion for Motion for to Motion Compel [PT-ON-LIT-008].docx
to Compel to Answers Compel Answers to Answers Undertakings_2 to to No... Undertakings_2 · Saved [PT-ON-LIT-008].docx
to this [PT-ON-LIT-008].docx
PC
No... No... · Saved · No... Saved to · this Saved to this PC to PC this PC
AI Prompt for Affidavit for Motion to Compel Answers to Undertakings_2 [PT-ON-LIT-008].docx No... · Saved to this PC
AutoSave
File
Draw File LEAP File
Design LEAPHome Home Layout Mailings Mailings Add-ins Review Review Home Insert Home Insert Insert References Insert Draw Draw Design Draw Mailings Design Design Layout Review Layout Layout References View References Developer Mailings Review View Help ViewDeveloper Developer Add-ins Add-ins Add-ins Help Help
Comments Help
Off
Editing Share Comments Comments Editing Editing EditingShare
Share Share
File
LEAP
Home Insert Draw Design Layout Comments Editing References Mailings Review Apply Document Type
Enclosures Apply Apply Text Document Apply Paste Document Type
with Type
Fields Type Enclosures
Developer Add-ins Help
Enclosures Text Rename Text Text Paste
View
Paste with Paste with Fields Fields with Rename Rename Rename
Share
Fields
Apply Document Type Enclosures Text Paste with Fields Rename
Run Fillin
Multiple Run Print Run Fillin Fillin Run Save Fillin
to Matter Multiple as PDF Multiple Print Multiple Print
Cc Print Save Save to Matter to Save Matter as to Matter PDF as PDF as PDF Cc Cc Cc
Save Close Update Save Save &
Delete Rename & Save Rename &
Share Rename Save SaveClose Close NotUpdate Close Update Send Delete Update Delete Delete Share
Bring Share
toShare
Not Not Not Send Send Send Bring Bring to to Bring to
Run Fillin
Multiple Print
Editing
Provide
Editing Editing Editing Provide Provide Provide
Save to Matter as PDF Cc
Close Close & Close
Save & Close
Document
& Rename & Close Save Close Update DeleteDocument
Share
Not
Billable Billable
Send Document
Bring to
AutoSave
BillableOff
Document
Front Document
Front Front
Editing Provide
Convert AI Prompt Billable
Fields for Affidavit to Text Document for Motion to Save Compel Front
AsConvert Answers Convert Fields to Convert Undertakings_2 Fields Email to Text Fields to As Text [PT-ON-LIT-008].docx
to Text Save Save As As Save Insert AsNo... Clause · Email Saved Email As to this Email AsPC
As
Feedback Insert Insert Clause Insert Clause Clause Feedback
Feedback
Close & Close
Document Billable Document Front Convert Fields to Text Save As
Email As
Insert Clause
Feedback
Document Control Document Document Activity Document Document Control Control Control Microsoft Control Teams Activity Activity Activity Microsoft Activity Microsoft Teams Microsoft Teams Microsoft Teams Teams Advanced Functions Advanced Functions Advanced Advanced Functions Advanced Functions Functions Editing Editing Feedback Feedback
Editing Editing Editing Feedback Feedback Feedback
File LEAP Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Developer Add-ins Help
Comments Editing Share
Save &
Close
Rename
& Close
Save Close Update Delete Share Not
Document Billable
Send
Document
Matter AI for Apply Word Document Matter Type AI for Word Enclosures Matter Matter Text AI Matter for AI for Paste Word AI Word with for Fields Word Rename
Bring to
Front
Affidavit Prompt - Motion to Compel a Person or Party to Provide
Prompt
Matter AI for Word
Reload
Answers to Undertakings
AI Prompt for Affidavit for Motion to Compel Answers to Underta...
Affidavit Prompt - Motion to Affidavit Compel Affidavit Prompt a Person Prompt - Motion or - Motion Party - Motion to to Compel Provide
to Compel a Person a a Person or Party or Party or to Party Provide to Prompt
to Provide
Prompt Prompt Prompt
Reload
Reload Reload Reload
Answers to Undertakings Answers Answers to Undertakings
to to Undertakings
AI Prompt for Affidavit for Motion AI Prompt AI to 2024/367 Prompt Compel AI Prompt for for Affidavit Answers for Affidavit for to for Motion Underta... Motion for to Motion Compel to to Compel Answers Answers to Underta... to to Underta...
SUMMARY
2. This affidavit is submitted in support of a motion to compel Elaine
To create an Affidavit in support of a motion to compel a person to answer undertakings given at New!
SUMMARY
an Examination Affidavit for Discovery Prompt in the province - Motion of Ontario to in Compel a civil litigation a Person case. The or target Party to Provide
Prompt
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Sampson, the Defendant, to provide answers to undertakings
Reload
audience includes the court and legal representatives. Answers to Undertakings
2. This affidavit AI is Prompt
given submitted for Affidavit
at her Examination 2. in This support 2. for This Motion affidavit 2. for This of to
Discovery. a Compel affidavit motion is submitted is Answers
The to is motion compel submitted to in Underta...
seeks support in Elaine
an
support of a of motion a motion of a to motion compel to to compel Elaine Elaine Elaine
To create an Affidavit in support of a motion To create To to create compel an To Affidavit create an a Affidavit person an in Affidavit support to in support answer in of support a undertakings of motion a motion of to a compel motion to given compel to a at person compel a person to a answer person to answer to undertakings answer undertakings given given at at
STEPS
12+ given at AI
an Examination for Discovery in the province an Examination an of Ontario an Examination for Discovery a for civil litigation for Discovery in the in case. province the province The the of target province Ontario of Ontario of in Ontario a in civil a civil litigation in a litigation civil case. litigation case. The The case. target target The target
Sampson, the order Defendant, requiring to the Sampson, provide Defendant Sampson, answers to the deliver the Defendant, to the complete undertakings Defendant, to andprovide to to provide answers answers to undertakings
to to undertakings
SUMMARY
audience includes the court and legal audience representatives.
audience The includes audience following includes the includes steps court the must court and the be executed and court legal legal representatives.
and sequentially legal representatives.
to prepare your affidavit:
satisfactory 2. This answers affidavit given to is
given all submitted
at outstanding support
her at her Examination undertakings, of a motion for for as to compel Elaine
To create an Affidavit in support of a motion to compel a person to answer undertakings given Litigation
given her Examination for Discovery. given The at motion her Examination seeks Discovery. an
for Discovery. The The motion motion The seeks motion seeks an seeks an an
STEPS
STEPS STEPS STEPS an Examination for Discovery in the province of Ontario in a civil litigation case. The target
STEP 1: User Interaction and Confirmation Step
previously Sampson, agreed and the order Defendant, by the to provide Court. The answers motion to is undertakings
audience includes the court and legal representatives.
Prompts
order requiring the Defendant order to order deliver requiring order complete requiring the the Defendant and
the Defendant to deliver to deliver to complete deliver complete and and and
given at her Examination for Discovery. The motion seeks an
The following steps must be executed The sequentially The following following Ask The the to steps following prepare user steps “Who must must do be you executed be want executed to compel sequentially to provide to answers prepare to prepare to undertakings your your affidavit: affidavit: and what is their
STEPS your steps affidavit: must be executed sequentially to prepare your affidavit: New!
role in the proceeding? (Ex:James Lee, Defendant)” and wait for the user to reply.
satisfactory Ask me answers anything
to order all outstanding requiring satisfactory the satisfactory Defendant undertakings, answers to answers deliver to all to as complete outstanding all to all outstanding undertakings, undertakings, as as as
The following steps must be executed sequentially to prepare your affidavit:
STEP STEP 1: User 1: User Interaction and and Confirmation Step Step
Matter AI satisfactory
can make mistakes. previously answers Consider to agreed all
checking agreed outstanding important and order undertakings,
information. order
by by the as
STEP 1: User Interaction and Confirmation Step STEP 1: User Interaction and Confirmation Step
previously agreed and order by the previously Court. The agreed motion and isorder
the Court. by Court. the The Court. The motion motion The is motion is is
STEP 1:Use the Following to Source the Content and then Draft the Affidavit
STEP 1: User Interaction and Confirmation Step
12+ previously agreed and order by the Court. The motion is
Ask the user “Who do you want to compel Ask Ask to the provide user the Ask user “Who the answers “Who user do you do “Who to undertakings you want do want to you compel to want compel and to what compel provide to provide is their to answers provide answers to answers undertakings to to undertakings and and what what is and their is what theiris their
role in the proceeding? (Ex:James Page Lee, 1 role of Defendant)” 7 role in 2538 the in role proceeding? words the and the wait Ask proceeding? for English
the (Ex:James the user (United user “Who(Ex:James States) Lee, to do reply. you Lee, Defendant)” want Text Lee, to Predictions: compel Defendant)” and to On provide and wait wait for answers and the for wait Accessibility: user the to undertakings for user to the reply. to user Investigate reply. and to what reply. is their
Focus 80%
role in the proceeding? (Ex:James Lee, Defendant)” and wait for the user to reply.
Ask me anything
Ask Ask me me Ask anything
me anything
Ask me anything
STEP 1:Use the Following to Source STEP the STEP Content 1:Use STEP 1:Use the and 1:Use Following then STEP 1:Use the Draft Following to the Source to Affidavit Source to the to Source Content the Content the and Content and then and then Draft and then then Draft the Draft Affidavit
the Affidavit
2024/367
Multiple Print
Save 2024/367 As
Litigation
Prompts
2024/367
2024/367
Document Control Activity Microsoft Teams Advanced Functions Editing Feedback
Matter AI can make mistakes. Matter Consider AI can Matter make Matter checking AI mistakes. Matter can AI can make important Consider AI make can mistakes. make checking information. mistakes. Consider important Consider information. Consider checking checking checking important important information.
information.
Accessibility: Investigate
Page 1 of 7 2538 words English (United States) Text Predictions: On Focus 80%
words Text words 2538 Predictions: wordsEnglish OnEnglish (United English (United States) (United Accessibility: States) Text States) Text Predictions: Investigate
Text Predictions: On On On Accessibility: Accessibility: Investigate
Investigate
Page 1 of 7 2538 words English Page (United Page 1 of 17 Page States) of 72538 1 of 2538 Focus 80%
7 Focus Focus 80% 80%
Focus 80%
Run Fillin
Convert Fields to Text
Save to Matter as PDF
Simplify civil litigation with structured matter types,
Email As
Cc
Insert Clause
well-crafted court forms, and powerful automation.
Customize key details with ease, and boost efficiency
with tools like an interest calculator and AI-assisted
drafting—everything you need, right at your fingertips.
Attend a demo & recieve a $25 gift card!
Editing
Provide
Feedback
Guarding the Media’s
Effective Access to
Open Courts
David Thompson, Carroll Heyd Chown LLP
This article is part of David Thompson’s series on Advocating for the Rule of Law.
The media is often described as one of the key pillars of the Rule of Law because it can shine a
light on the actions of those in power, hold them to account, and provide citizens with reliable
information they need to exercise their democratic rights.
In order to better understand how threats to the media impact the Rule of Law, and what litigators
can do in response to those threats, I spoke with two media lawyers: Justin Manoryk, legal
director, media and litigation at Torstar Corporation (Torstar), and Kaley Pulfer, partner at DMG
9

Advocates LLP and board member of the Canadian
Media Lawyers Association (CMLA).
Both Manoryk and Pulfer highlighted challenges
they have observed with applying the
open court principle. There is a constant tension
between the right to privacy and the media’s
right to freedom of expression. As the Supreme
Court set out in Sherman Estate v Donovan, part
of the test to justify an order restricting court
openness is demonstrating that court openness
poses a serious risk to an important public
interest. In order for disclosure of private information
to pose a serious risk to the public interest,
it must be sufficiently sensitive to “strike at
the biographical core” of the affected individual
so that publication would cause them to suffer
an affront to their dignity.
Both Manoryk and Pulfer often observe parties
seeking publication bans or orders to close
the courtroom. Media organizations require
vigorous advocacy to ensure that the Sherman
Estate test is correctly applied and that their
right to freedom of expression is fairly considered.
It can be difficult for media organizations
to do this due to a lack of resources. Manoryk
is the only newsroom lawyer for all of Torstar,
which publishes more than 70 newspapers. He
observes that it is commonplace in criminal cases
for court openness to get pushed to the side,
and there is simply not enough time to address
all of the issues that come up.
With respect to lack of resources, Pulfer has
observed shrinking and disappearing newsrooms,
especially in smaller cities and towns.
With these limited resources, media organizations
have to be selective in what they choose to
litigate. Media coalitions will sometimes launch
these fights, but that is not always an option.
Manoryk is concerned that if the open court
principle is eroded, we will erode transparency
in our justice system. Media access acts as
a safeguard to the administration of justice, to
ensure that the system is operating well. The
press was described by the Supreme Court
in Sherman Estate as the “eyes and ears of the
public”. If media access is limited such that the
public’s eyes and ears are closed, we risk our
society losing confidence in the administration
of justice. Pulfer agrees that this risk exists, and
is further concerned about a corresponding rise
in populism, the spread of misinformation, and
growing attacks on an independent media.
In addition to increasing concerns about the
right to access information, Pulfer points to the
erosion of the rights of citizens to receive information.
There are fewer reporters in courtrooms
as a byproduct of shrinking resources. The loss
of community newspapers is devastating. One
way to address this is to allow virtual court access
to reporters. The 2025 Ontario Superior
Court decision in Toronto Star v His Majesty the
King sets out that the open court principle does
not require the court to allow virtual access. 1
That said, in that case virtual access was granted
to recognized media outlets, due to the remote
location of the trial, a recognition that local news
coverage has declined and that “remaining media
organizations must do more with less”.
What can litigators do to support media and
the Rule of Law? Manoryk suggests that all litigators
should read Sherman Estate and be familiar
with the threshold required to limit court
openness. In addition to informing ourselves,
Pulfer says that we need to educate our clients
that the default in the court system is openness,
and that there needs to be a compelling reason
to depart from that. As officers of the court, we
have a duty not only to our clients, but to the
court, and to upholding the Rule of Law. This
likely means that there are instances in which
your client wants you to take a certain position
that may be in conflict with those other duties.
This last point really resonated with me, and I
hope it might with others. I sometimes explain
to clients that I will not take certain positions
that may be advantageous in the short term,
but that in the long term could harm my reputation
or the reputation of the legal profession.
If we consider the open court principle as
fundamental to the Rule of Law, there may be
instances in which we tell our clients that we
won’t take a certain position that would unjustifiably
infringe upon court openness.
For litigators who may want to get further involved,
both Pulfer and Manoryk suggest looking
into the CMLA or similar organizations supporting
Canadian media outlets. There is a need and an
opportunity for reduced rate and pro bono work.
Note
1. This application was argued by Justin Manoryk,
although he was likely too humble to mention it
himself.
10 11

THE HAPPY LAWYER PROJECT
Happy Lawyer Project:
Win or lose, there’s always
something to learn
Lisa Marie Buccella, Aviva Trial Lawyers
The Happy Lawyer Project is Lisa Marie Buccella’s recurring column offering reflections and advice on
litigation and life.
Following a recent trial verdict that resulted in a modest damages award for the plaintiff but
highly disproportionate costs to the defendant, I found myself contemplating the definition of
success. We often view outcomes in absolute terms, but success is usually relative to the judgment
obtained, the fees spent, the costs awarded, and the initial probability of winning. Success is
often less about a simple win or loss, and more
about measuring the outcome against our expectations
in the circumstances.
The truth is that nearly every litigator has been
(or will be) on the losing side of a case, whether it’s
a close call or a blowout. Here is what I’ve learned:
Control the variables; accept the chaos.
Trials—especially jury trials—and arbitrations are
inherently unpredictable. Preparation and mastery
of the case are the only variables we control,
but we have to accept that they don’t always guarantee
the result.
The “mental workout” is its own reward.
In an age of multitasking and constant distraction,
a trial forces you into prolonged periods of
deep work and focus on a single topic. Having
permission to ruthlessly block out the trivial and
non-urgent noise was refreshing; it reminded me
of what I am capable of when I am fully engaged.
Talking about failure helps everyone.
David Thompson, a friend of mine who is a
commercial litigator at Carroll Heyd Chown LLP,
notes that while it’s easier to discuss failure
when you’ve had plenty of wins, it’s still uncomfortable.
If we view litigation as zero-sum, then
for every loser, there is a winner. However, if we
view it subjectively, every party often feels like
they have “lost” something (like time, money or
reputation) in every case. Helping others understand
what went well and what didn’t models
courage and humility, helps younger lawyers
put outcomes into perspective, and creates better
advocates all around.
Public gratitude matters.
Ensure those you work with feel appreciated—and
do it publicly. Clerks, students, assistants,
and co-counsel carry you through
the trenches. Find ways to lift them up: a
shout-out in a team meeting, a LinkedIn
post, or a firmwide email. As the psychologist
and author Adam Grant notes, good
leaders don’t just take responsibility; they
give credit where it’s due to ensure their
teams feel valued.
12 13

ADVOCACY
Winning Advocacy Using
Visual Aids
Laura Bevan, Lawson Lundell LLP
Over lunch last month, my colleague (and fellow TAS member) Scott Lucyk posed the following question:
why don’t Canadian lawyers use more visual aids and demonstrative evidence as advocacy tools
in the courtroom? In the international arbitration environment, using “demonstratives” to support
written submissions is standard practice. Counsel routinely submit PowerPoint decks that excerpt key
images and statements, to great effect, using the limited time before the (very expensive) arbitrator to
focus on the core evidence and law that will win the case.
As Jenny Brevorka wrote in The Advocates’ Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, Summer 2021 and in its most
recent issue, Vol. 44, No. 3, Winter 2025 (available to TAS members here) we know that visual aids
and infographics are impactful tools. When used right, these tools distill complex information
and communicate your client’s story quickly and effectively to a decision-maker. What are some
things to think about when considering the use
of visual aids?
• Know the difference between using visual
aids to organize admissible evidence (e.g.,
through a PowerPoint presentation) and using
demonstrative evidence as a testimonial
aid to explain evidence. Demonstrative evidence
is admissible if it is useful to explain
evidence, is relevant and accurate, and otherwise
not prejudicial. 1
• Build your file with “demonstratives” in mind.
Consider whether photographs, maps, or
other objects will assist a witness to communicate
their evidence, and a decision-maker
to understand that testimony.
• Consider how organizational and demonstrative
aids should be presented. Maps can
be useless if the information is buried on a
8.5 x 11 in. page in the back of written submissions,
and PowerPoints can lose their
punch if there is too much text on a slide.
Hire a service that will produce visual aids
in large format, or arrange to have visual
aids displayed on screens in the courtroom
during a witness’ testimony.
• Do not add editorial comment or narrative
to testimonial aids. Demonstrative evidence
is not itself evidence, and cannot be used to
prove facts. 2
• Talk to your friend opposite about the content
and intended use of visual aids in advance
of hearing day. Visual aids can quickly
turn into tools of delay if there is a dispute
about the accuracy, completeness, or timely
disclosure of a demonstrative tool.
Notes
1. David M. Paciocco, Palma Paciocco & Lee Stuesser,
The Law of Evidence, 8th ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2020
at p. 567-568).
2. Nydam v. Cunningham, 2025 O.J. No. 4732.
Connect on
the TAS
Mentoring
Portal
EXCLUSIVELY FOR TAS MEMBERS
CLICK HERE FOR
MORE INFORMATION
14 15

PRACTICE
Trauma-informed lawyering:
what is it and why should
lawyers care?
Anna Matas, St. Lawrence Barristers PC and
Julie Mouris, Conway Litigation
This two-part article is dedicated to Abdalla Barqawi, who always understood the power of a
trauma-informed practice.
“We can aspire to a systemic shift to a trauma-informed legal system, but that shift will begin one
hearing at a time. … A trauma-informed process can … operate to remove barriers to just outcomes,
and enhance public respect for, and the legitimacy of, the administration of justice.”
– Justice Akbarali,
S v Ukraine International Airlines JSC, 2024 ONSC 3303 at paras 99-100
Central to the administration of justice is a set
of evidentiary rules premised on beliefs about
how human memory works and how humans
will behave when recounting events. Although
science has evolved to better understand the
impact of trauma on memory, our laws of evidence
have not kept pace. One of the many
benefits of a trauma-informed approach is that
it provides a framework for reconciling what
we now know about trauma’s effects on memory
and behaviour with legal expectations that
were crafted around outdated assumptions
about how ‘reliable’ evidence should look.
What is a trauma-informed approach?
The concept of trauma-informed lawyering has
been gaining traction in the Canadian legal field
in recent years, particularly in family law and
personal injury law. Grounded in the scientific
understanding of how trauma affects individuals,
trauma-informed lawyering is quickly becoming
an essential tool for all lawyers. Indeed,
trauma can arise in myriad ways for litigants
in various areas of law. In this two-part article,
we seek first to explain trauma-informed lawyering
and the related meaning and impact of
trauma on litigants. In part two, we will explore
why this approach should matter to all lawyers,
and its impact on our collective “search
for truth”.
S v Ukraine International Airlines JSC, a 2024
case of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
is one of the first-known Canadian decisions to
directly discuss trauma-informed lawyering. 1
This case arose from the crash of a Ukraine
International Airlines flight after it was shot
down by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps of Iran, tragically killing all 176 passengers
and crew onboard. Prior to trial, the presiding
judge, Justice Akbarali, was concerned
that the typical trial process could retraumatize
observers who had lost loved ones and witnesses
who had been involved. She therefore
asked counsel to consider how this potential
for retraumatization or vicarious traumatization
could be minimized through a trauma-informed
process. 2
In her reasons, Justice Akbarali described the
trauma-informed process as follows, noting
that it was not yet broadly understood:
… a trauma-informed process… is not one
that aims to heal the trauma that participants
in the process have experienced. It is
not about manners or kindness. It is about
adapting our processes in a way that seeks
to minimize the trauma that the legal process
itself can create, and it is about understanding
how a person’s trauma might
inform or affect their interactions with the
legal system. … 3
As a result of Justice Akbarali’s direction,
counsel prepared and agreed to Trauma Informed
Trial Guidelines for claimants, counsel
and court staff, and for trial preparation. These
Guidelines are attached as appendices to Justice
Akbarali’s reasons, to make them available
as a resource. They include practical tips for
16 17

counsel before, during and post-trial. For instance,
one tip encourages counsel to communicate
with a witness during trial with empathy,
compassion and humanity, making direct eye
contact, and to remember that demonstrating
compassion can occur simultaneously with advocacy
for your client.
Justice Akbarali found that the trauma-informed
process was “infinitely better, and
more human, than conducting the trial on a
business-as-usual basis”. 4 Rather than alter the
adversarial nature of the trial, she found that
this approach enhanced the conduct of the trial
without causing unnecessary trauma to those
participating in and observing the trial.
This decision illustrates that trauma-informed
lawyering, like civility, is a tool that can enhance
both advocacy and respect for the administration
of justice.
Friday, May 8, 2026 | 9:00 am - 4:00 pm (PT)
Charest Legal Solutions Inc., RBC Place, 5th Floor, Vancouver BC
What is trauma and what is its impact on litigants?
Trauma is commonly defined as an event or
series of events that an individual experiences
as physically or emotionally harmful, overwhelming,
or life-threatening, and that results
in lasting adverse effects on their emotional,
cognitive, physical, or social well-being. 5 This
definition emphasizes that trauma is not determined
solely by the objective nature of an
event. Rather, what makes an event traumatic
is how it is subjectively experienced, including
feelings of terror, helplessness, disconnection,
or loss of control. 6 Individuals assign meaning
to events through the lens of their personal
histories, cultural context, resilience, supports,
and prior exposure to harm. In other words, the
same event may be traumatic for one person
but not another. 7
Trauma is widespread. Research shows that
between 50 and 75% of Canadians have experienced
some form of traumatic event and that
trauma rates are significantly higher among
people most likely to come into contact with the
justice system, including survivors of violence
and individuals who have been accused or incarcerated.
8
Join us in-person in Vancouver for this unique new program led by The Hon.
Justice Ward Branch, Supreme Court of British Columbia. We will bring together
experienced counsel who will bravely demonstrate advocacy skills performed
badly and let you identify their mistakes.
LEARN MORE
Trauma has profound effects on cognition,
memory, emotion, behaviour, and interpersonal
functioning. Trauma can impair a person’s
ability to consolidate memories, resulting in
fragmented, non-linear, or inconsistent recall. 9
These patterns, which are normal consequences
of trauma, are often misinterpreted in legal
contexts as signs of fabrication or unreliability.
Trauma also shapes demeanour: individuals
may appear flat, dissociated, evasive, overwhelmed,
or emotionally volatile—not because
they are being dishonest, but because trauma
dysregulates the nervous system. 10 This may be
interpreted as a lack of credibility.
These effects can influence not only evidence-giving,
but every stage of the legal process.
Trauma can impair focus, executive functioning,
and decision-making capacity, making it
harder to provide coherent instructions, assess
risk, or engage meaningfully in negotiations. 11
Trauma may push individuals outside their
“window of tolerance”, i.e. the neurobiological
zone in which a person can reason, communicate,
and regulate emotions. When in hyperarousal
(fight/flight) or hypoarousal (freeze/collapse),
a litigant may shut down, become rigid in
their positions, or respond in ways that appear
oppositional or disengaged. 12
Trauma also intersects with power imbalances.
Individuals with trauma histories may be
more vulnerable to coercion, intimidation, or
re-traumatization during adversarial proceedings.
Trauma-informed mediation literature
stresses that unresolved trauma can limit a
person’s capacity to remain emotionally regulated,
participate effectively, or negotiate safely
without a process design that prioritizes safety,
trust, empowerment, and cultural awareness. 13
Because trauma is so prevalent among plaintiffs
in personal injury cases, complainants and
accused persons in criminal matters, and parents
in family disputes, its effects should be
considered routine rather than exceptional.
Trauma-informed practice is also a crucial part
of cultural competency for any lawyers working
with Indigenous peoples. 14
In addition to areas where trauma is easily
recognized, we suggest it is also widespread
in many other areas of law including estates,
employment, and commercial law (for example,
shareholder disputes among privately
held companies).
Trauma does not change the legal rights of
any party, but it profoundly affects how people
communicate. It also shapes how they perceive
risk and threat, their willingness to compromise,
and how they experience conflict. In an
adversarial system, these are significant barriers
to many individuals’ full participation in
legal processes. Expanding awareness of trauma-informed
lawyering will help address these
barriers; part 2 of this article will explore areas
in which this approach may be useful.
Notes
1. S v Ukraine International Airlines JSC, 2024 ONSC
3303 [S v Ukraine], aff’d: 2025 ONCA 587.
2. S v Ukraine at paras 97-98.
3. S v Ukraine at para 100.
4. S v Ukraine at para 108.
5. Paulson et al., Towards a Trauma-Informed Approach
to Evidence Law, The Canadian Bar Review,
vol. 101, at 500–501.
6. Ibid., at 501–502.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., at 505–506; Saini et al., A Framework for Trauma-Informed
Mediation: A Heart and Mind Approach
to Conflict Resolution, Cardozo Journal of Conflict
Resolution, vol. 26, at 408.
9. Towards a Trauma-Informed Approach to Evidence
Law, at 509–515.10. Ibid., at 534-538.
11. A Framework for Trauma-Informed Mediation, at
409–410.
12. Ibid., at 414–415.
13. Ibid., at 410–417.
14. The Advocates’ Society, Indigenous Bar Association
and Law Society of Ontario, Guide for Lawyers
Working with Indigenous Peoples, 1st Supplement,
2022: see chapter 2 on Trauma-Informed Practice.
18 19

TECHNOLOGY
Using AI Tools in Practice:
Experts Edition
Jordan Katz, Ivanov Katz LLP
The rapid proliferation of generative AI poses a unique challenge—and opportunity—for mid-career
litigators. We did not go to law school or cut our teeth in the age of AI. Headlines focusing on
case hallucinations may lead many of us to believe that adoption and integration of AI into our
practices remains fraught with risk, or is simply a “nice to have”. Most of us have figured out a way
to litigate efficiently, and well, in a pre-AI world.
Now imagine what the articling version of you would have thought of the partner who looked
skeptically at the “personal digital assistant” while Blackberries and iPhones became attached to
our hips. Litigators who adopt this attitude to AI are not only missing out on a useful tool but are
in danger of being left behind.
With that in mind, here are some short use cases about how to use AI tools to augment your litigation
practice focused on a common issue – working with experts. These suggestions are meant
to be platform-agnostic and exploratory – results
not guaranteed!
1. Shortcut to Subject-Matter Expertise
Most of us will find ourselves in a position of having
to cross-examine a doctor, engineer, or other
professional with some esoteric field of expertise.
Usually you (and a helpful junior librarian) would
parse and pull literature on the area, including articles
cited in reports or CVs.
With effective prompts, AI can easily provide
you with a digest of the area of expertise (and
sometimes, the expert) that you need. You can
then use results to deepen your understanding
of the issues in your case and generate or iterate
on cross-examination questions.
Sample Prompts:
• Review the full text of the five attached articles
on treatment approaches for transient
ischemic attacks, and summarize their
main arguments in five bullet points. For
each point, include a brief quote or excerpt
that best encapsulates the argument.
• Based on the uploaded articles on municipal
traffic engineering in Ontario,
identify three specific legislative or regulatory
gaps and their potential implications
for public safety.
2. Build Stronger Cross-Examinations
In addition to educating you, AI tools can also
analyze evidence, studies and reports within the
specific context of your case, helping you identify
key points to focus on during cross-examination.
AI can perform automated review of both
scientific or technical studies, and evidence in
your case. Depending on the breadth of information
you have access to, AI can also review
past articles, testimony or public comments to
identify issues with an expert’s consistency on
key positions.
Sample Prompts:
• Using the uploaded expert report, identify
three assumptions that the expert relies
upon in arriving at their conclusions. For
each assumption identified, identify 3
sources of information in the uploaded
[discovery transcripts, manual, literature]
that support the assumption, and 3
sources that undermine it.
20 21

• Identify any opinions or conclusions in the
report which contradict published literature
in the field.
3. Ask the Experts About AI
Finally, we would be wise to remember that
we are not the only profession using AI to augment
our practices. It is becoming increasingly
common for other professionals to use AI to
take contemporaneous medical notes, summarize
executive meetings, and analyze large datasets.
It would not be a surprise if experts used
AI to generate some or all of their reports, which
poses both a challenge and an opportunity.
When retaining experts, you must ensure that
both you and they can verify the authenticity of
any information referred to in their reports. In
Ontario, Rules 53.03(2.1) and (2.1.1) of the Rules
of Civil Procedure require experts to verify the authenticity
of the authorities or other documents
or records referred to in their reports. This obligation
is specifically cited in the Superior Court of
Justice’s updated Civil Provincial Practice Direction
regarding the use of AI for Court Proceedings.
Similar requirements are promulgated in a
notice from the Federal Court, citing the Expert
Witnesses Code of Conduct as referred to Rule
52.2 of the Federal Courts Rules.
On the other hand, an expert who uses AI to
aid in their research or report-writing may be
vulnerable to targeted questions on those issues,
even where their report does not contain
clear hallucinations or misinformation. This can
be a ripe area to introduce uncertainty into the
expert’s opinion, or attack their credibility.
Ed. note: If you are looking for more information
on how to use AI in your practice, The Advocates’
Society offers a series on AI for Litigators.
Past programs are available on-demand on the
TAS Video Collections page.
22

Choose from Canada’s top mediators and arbitrators
Many Paths to Resolution. One Trusted Destination.
PRACTICE
Helen Walt
B.Comm., LL.B., LL.M.
Helen has expertise in disputes
related to personal injury, insurance,
medical malpractice, commercial and
contract matters. She has over 20
years of mediation experience and is a
member of the Canadian Academy of
Distinguished Neutrals. She is
persistent, flexible and adapts to the
needs of both parties and the
situation.
Adam Ship
Q.Arb.
Adam has expertise mediating and
arbitrating disputes related to
franchise, corporate-commercial and
tort litigation. As the former head of
a leading law firm's national franchise
practice and a litigation partner, he
has represented shareholders,
private and public companies in a
wide range of corporate-commercial
disputes.
Building a Practice as a
Mid-Career Arbitrator
Compiled by: Ian C. Matthews,
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Arbitration is a popular vehicle for resolving disputes. It is tempting to think of senior practitioners
or retired judges as the prime candidates for arbitrator roles. There is, however, a
growing and impressive group of mid-career advocates building out practices as arbitrators. We
assembled three panellists to share their insights on this trend, as mid-career advocates with
experience as a neutral.
416.362.8555 • 1.800.856.5154 • booking@adr.ca • adrchambers.com
25

Joanne Luu, FCIArb, is a partner at Burnet,
Duckworth & Palmer in Calgary (call to the bar:
2012 (AB) and 2023 (BC)). She focuses on complex
commercial arbitration and litigation matters
as counsel. Joanne also serves as arbitrator
and mediator.
Laura Cundari (she/her), FCIArb, is a partner
at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Vancouver
(call to the bar: 2008 (BC)) where she co-leads
the national arbitration team. She primarily acts
as arbitration counsel, but also serves as an independent
neutral and is appointed to several
arbitral institution rosters. She is a member of
ICDR’s Canada Advisory Committee, ITA’s Advisory
Board, and sits on the board of CanArb-
Week. She also serves on the ICC Canada Arbitrator
Nominations Commission.
1. What prompted your interest in acting as
an arbitrator?
JOANNE: Having clerked at the Alberta Court of
Appeal and served as David R. Haigh, K.C.’s tribunal
secretary for international commercial arbitrations,
I’d always been interested in the idea of
sitting as an arbitrator “someday”. When Arbitration
Place invited me to join a roster of arbitrators
a few years ago, it gave me the impetus (and
confidence) to start taking on arbitrator appointments.
It made me realize that someday could
- and did - come sooner than expected.
LAURA: Arbitration was not on my radar until I
worked on my first large infrastructure arbitration.
I was immediately drawn to the flexibility
and efficiency of arbitration and I could see a path
forward to develop a practice in the area. I felt a
sense of alignment in terms of what I would find
fulfilling and the potential opportunity.
ERIC: I started my career at Freshfields in
London. Arbitration interested me because it
brought together different legal traditions as
well as the possibility for efficiently solving the
parties’ dispute.
2. What are the most foundational tools
for developing an arbitration practice; networking,
industry group involvement, specific
skill sets, or designations?
LAURA: As an arbitrator it is absolutely critical
that you have a deep understanding of procedure
and the jurisprudence related to procedural
fairness and bias. This is something that can
be learned through skills-based training, such as
through courses run by the Chartered Institute
of Arbitrators or TCAS. However, it is equally critical
that you have developed sound judgment on
these matters through experience. Experience as
arbitration counsel is ideal, as you will have dealt
Creative. Efficient. Effective.
Law firms and corporate law department clients consistently tell us that
Heuristica provides a distinct and measurable competitive advantage,
including solicitor client privilege, workflow efficiencies, increased speed and
accuracy, defensibility, and heightened knowledge transfer to legal teams.
Eric Morgan, Q.Arb, is a partner at Morgan
Joshi LLP in Toronto (call to the bar: 2011
(ON)), and is an arbitrator on several Canadian
arbitral rosters. He has been appointed by
parties, institutions and courts as an arbitrator
to decide domestic and international commercial
disputes. He maintains a counsel practice
focused on corporate governance advice and
dispute resolution.
We Do Discovery Differently. Learn How.
1-833-435-4321 | info@discoverycounsel.ca | heuristica.ca
Toronto | Calgary
HEU_010524_A_SpringAd_Ad_7.5x4.9167.indd HEU_010524_A_WinterAd_Ad_7.5x4.9167.indd 1
2024-01-05 7:06 AM
26 27

directly with the specific types of issues that can
arise. Involvement in industry groups is also a
great way to learn.
JOANNE: I work backwards from what I value in
a “good arbitrator” to consider the requisite foundations
to serve as one:
• To deliver on facilitating an efficient and effective
arbitration, you need an arbitrator
that fully appreciates the rules and rationale
behind various procedures (as boring
as that sounds);
• To ensure that the arbitrator does not
overstep, you need one that understands
where her jurisdiction comes from and
what her role is. She is not a judge. She is a
service provider and with that comes certain
expectations, including being timely;
• To deliver an enforceable award, you need
an arbitrator that understands the arbitral
regime and procedural fairness;
• To facilitate a practical procedure, you
need an arbitrator that will be mindful of
how certain procedural orders or directions
will impact the counsel and parties
who have to comply with them; this is really
a comment about materiality and proportionality
and learning where to draw
that line; and
• To deliver an award that the losing party
can accept (even though they may ultimately
disagree), you need an arbitrator
that digs in, employs sound legal reasoning
and addresses arguments in a way that
makes both parties feel they had their “day
in court”.
To me, there isn’t a checklist of designations.
You want to be the total package. Once you’ve
developed those skills, it’s really about getting
your name out there.
ERIC: As an arbitrator, you do need to become
known within the arbitration community.
Choosing an arbitrator is a very important decision
for counsel and the parties, and it is often
made based on word of mouth. Being associated
with institutions, such as an arbitral roster,
really helped as well.
3. How do you build credibility as an arbitrator
at this stage in your practice?
JOANNE: Part of building credibility is about
building trust with others about who you are as
a neutral, especially where these processes are
often confidential. Accreditations help if you’re
relatively “new” to the practice. Some institutions
will require some formal training to be added to
their rosters if you haven’t yet received your first
appointment. Beyond that, it’s about building a
reputation. There is no shortcut: it’s done every
time you’ve picked up a file over the last decade
or so and civility counts. At the same time, you can
also add exposure through volunteering with organizations,
writing blogs, guest lecturing at the
University and presenting on panels. Distinguish
yourself as an expert.
ERIC: I started by becoming credentialed as an
arbitrator, completing the Toronto Commercial
Arbitration Society’s Gold Standard Course and
receiving the Q. Arb. designation from ADRIC.
In my experience, an arbitrator also builds their
credibility off their experience as counsel. Is this
someone who is reasonable, fair, practical, responsive
and experienced in this area of law?
LAURA: If you are mid-career, I suggest obtaining
some credentials and training to start. At
the same time, get involved in industry groups;
when I am acting as counsel and looking to appoint
arbitrators, it is important to me that they
are committed to staying up to date with recent
developments and challenges. As you start to
build knowledge and connections, seek out
writing and speaking opportunities.
4. What tips do you have for mid-career advocates
who may be thinking about developing
an arbitration component to their existing
practice?
ERIC: I would start with credentialed training, such
as through ADRIC or the Toronto Commercial Arbitration
Society’s Gold Standard Course. This allows
you to gain knowledge and the decision-maker’s
perspective, as well as explore whether this is
something you want to pursue further.
Advocacy Hour
TAS Video
Collections
TAS Video Collections is a library of professional
development programs that you can rent
and watch from the TAS website. Members,
sole practitioners, government lawyers, and
litigators at small firms can also take advantage
of discount pricing.
Click here to view
the full Advocacy
Hour collection
JOANNE: One of the best things I did for my practice
(even though I didn’t realize it at the time) was
to get involved in arbitral organizations like YCAP,
the ICC, the ICDR, CIArb and now VanIAC. It has
been a true pleasure to meet and work alongside
my peers across Canada and globally, which I believe
has inadvertently (but happily) led to referrals
and other opportunities.
LAURA: Develop a business plan each year, obtain
the input of someone knowledgeable in the
industry, and diligently execute on that plan.
There is of course a component of luck in achieving
success, but many of the most in-demand
arbitrators devote hundreds of hours a year to
speaking, writing, sitting on committees and contributing
to the arbitration community in order to
further their skills and connections. Put the work
in and be patient. Good luck!
28 29

Judicial Origins
Jordan Katz, Ivanov Katz LLP
CLICK HERE TO PLAY
CLICK HERE TO PLAY
ACROSS
1. Simile’s Center
4. Summer hrs.
7. "If you ask me," in textspeak
11. Rotten
12. Chessmen, e.g.
15. Phonetic spelling of Aussie "no"
16. Former Bolivian president Morales
17. Province: Canada:: ____ : Russia
18. Available
19. City on the Thames (the other one)
22. Oasis brother (the other one)
23. Not St. Or Ave.
24. Prefix with meter
25. Diva's delivery
26. Rights of passage
31. *Nairobi, Kenya
34. Fancy parkers
35. Animal in an Aesop fable
38. Has the ability to
39. Season ticket holder, presumably
40. Colour, as Easter eggs
41. "____ after me..."
43. Pre-exam feeling, maybe
45. *Pincher Creek, Alberta
47. Portuguese form of John
51. The Diamondbacks, on scoreboards
52. Add to an email
53. *Montreal, Quebec
54. Finish line for Porky or Bugs
59. Smidgen
61. Provide coverage for
62. Med. specialty
63. Wing: Prefix
64. Westernmost capital in Continental
Europe
65. Figure on an Aussie Xing sign, perhaps
66. ____cloud (source of comets)
67. Lean-____(simple shelters)
68. Gasoline additive brand
DOWN
1. *Stuttgart, Germany
2. ____ faire
3. God, in the Torah
4. "Back to the Future" transport
5. King-Byng, Nadon appointment, or
SNC-Lavalin, for example
6. Word repeated by a roadie into a microphone
7. One who's beyond belief?
8. Like Robinson Crusoe
9. Shade
10. Mined metal
12. Cocka____ (dog breed)
13. Arabic "son of"
14. RR stop
20. Key with two sharps: Abbr.
21. Nomadic peoples concentrated in Eastern
Europe
27. Sulfur symbol
28. Welsh form of John
29. "Talk to you" over text
30. Opposite of NNW
32. Thorny tree
33. "Do the ____"
35. Supply with weaponry
36. Brief time, in brief
37. Fry cook's concern
39. Swifties and Deadheads, for example
42. She disappeared on 7/2/1937
43. Painter with a Blue Period
44. Centre juridique pour femmes de l'Ontario
(Abbr.)
46. Roman 50
48. The NHL team that plays the northernmost
home games
49. "____ what your country can do for
you..."
50. "You flatter me too much!"
55. Up to, briefly
56. Foul mood
57. Land Registry Office (Abbr.)
58. Swamp
59. Big milestone for a young co.
60. Ear-related prefix
30 31
ANSWERS ON PAGE 33

Prosecutors’ Network Reception
November 13, 2025 | Toronto, ON
Judicial Origins
CROSSWORD ANSWER KEY
ACROSS
1. ASA
4. DST
7. IMHO
11. BAD
12. PIECES
15. NAUR
16. EVO
17. OBLAST
18. FREE
19. LONDONONTARIO
22. LIAM
23. RD
24. ODO
25. ARIA
26. EASEMENTS
31. JAMAL
34. VALETS
35. ASS
38. CAN
39. FAN
40. DYE
41. REPEAT
43. PANIC
45. MCLACHLIN
47. JOAO
51. ARI
52. CC
53. FISH
54. THATSALLFOLKS
59. IOTA
61. INSURE
62. ENT
63. PTER
64. LISBON
65. ROO
66. OORT
67. TOS
68. STP
DOWN
1. ABELLA
2. SAVOIR
3. ADONAI
4. DELOREAN
5. SCANDAL
6. TEST
7. INFIDEL
8. MAROONED
9. HUE
10. ORE
12. POO
13. IBN
14. STA
20. DMAJ
21. ROMANI
27. S
28. EVAN
29. TTY
30. SSE
32. ACACIA
33. MATH
35. ARM
36. SEC
37. SPLATTER
39. FANCLUBS
42. EARHART
43. PICASSO
44. CJFO
46. L
48. OILERS
49. ASKNOT
50. OHSTOP
55. TIL
56. SNIT
57. LRO
58. FEN
59. IPO
60. OTO
32 33

Arbitration & Mediation Networking Reception
Tuesday, November 18, 2025 | Toronto, ON
Class Actions Bench & Bar Networking Reception
Wednesday, November 26, 2025 | Toronto, ON
34 35

Estates Litigation Bench & Bar Reception
Thursday, November 27, 2025 | Toronto, ON
MAKE YOUR VOICE
HEARD IN
ADVOCACY MATTERS
Published by the Mid-Career
Advocates' Standing Committee,
Advocacy Matters is a regular
digital publication that
showcases the voices and
experiences of TAS members at
every stage of their careers.
We're looking for your
contributions. Share an article on
your practice area or a
memorable trial experience.
Analyze a significant case. Recap
a TAS event or program you
attended. Submit photos from
Society gatherings. Suggest a
member we should profile.
A MEMBER ONLY
PUBLICATION
Content ideas include:
What to know
about Partnership
Agreements
How to delegate
effectively
Mentoring in the
Age of AI
How to have difficult
conversations
How to start your
own firm
Or anything else that
would inspire and
support your fellow
TAS members
INTERESTED?
Reach out to Kristen Duerhammer,
Editor at kduerhammer@kpmg.ca
or Julie Mouris, Deputy Editor,
jmouris@conwaylitigation.ca 37
Click here to
check out past issues
of Advocacy Matters

President’s Festive Reception
December 4, 2025 | Toronto, ON
38 39

40
www.advocates.ca